Cameron attempted to make out, in his press conference in South Africa, that the only difference on Libya between Zuma and Cameron was over whether Gadaffi should leave at the beignning or end of a new political process. Zuma then flatly contradicted him by stating unequivocally that the NATO bpmbing should stop.

The US’ decision to recognise the Benghazi regime (which, remember, nobody has elected either) as the government of Libya is purely about removing legal obstacles to huge sums of cash being spread round ruling elites and arms industries. In fact, it is still the case that less than half the population of Libya are under rebel control. Gadaffi has been able in the last fortnight to mobilise much larger mass rallies of supporters than he could in the months before the start of the bombing campaign. There is strong empirical evidence that, exactly as I predicted it would, the effect of the NATO bombing campaign has been to shore up Gadaffi’s popularity and entrench him more firmly into power than when he faced a purely internal rebellion.

“The US’ decision to recognise the Benghazi regime (which, remember, nobody has elected either) …”
.
That’s the kind of arrogance that makes my blood boil.
Of course, if they didn’t set up the “rebels” themselves, they infiltrated/took them over very soon after they began.

Clark,
That’s what really interests me. I immediately thought it was a covert UK operation against the rebels as the UK was so in with Gadaffi but people on the ground believe it was a Libyan government operation.

The rapid changes of facts in reports, the contradictions, the fact that the SAS group were right near the dump and the farcical nature of the UK government’s explanation lead me to believe it was a UK mission to weaken the rebellion which most probably had been triggered by France.

A QUESTION OF SANITY: The Western media for quite some time has utilised Gaddafi’s eccentricities to portray him as mad.In reflecting on how this war in Libya has progressed, I, however, have reason to doubt the sanity of some Western leaders.The war has been advanced by mainly three NATO nations, America, France and Britain.Obama, while bombing Libya has professed that this is not a “war”. With stunning linguistic gymnastics, the war has somersaulted from the feet first “war” to a head over heels “support” mission and merely an “intervention”. I must now conclude that if I dislike my neighbour and start throwing Molotov cocktails on his roof and stones into his windows, I am not at war with him, but in an effort to have him remove from the neighbourhood, I am involved in a support mission and have merely intervened across the fence into his property. Sounds like a defence, then once I run it, I would have provided the Judge a good reason to order a psychiatric examination.Sarkozy, for his part, is faced with a UN Resolution which prohibits the supply of arms to Libya. He then in seeking to enforce the UN Resolution supplies arms to the rebels, while professing to be upholding that UN Resolution. Candidate number two for mental status assessment.In Britain, by parity of reason, one must assume that if a community took up arms, set up its own central bank, professed itself the new legitimate government of the UK, then for consistency, David Cameron, would simply fold his arms and direct that the British army not suppress the rebellion? Absolutely, because, no doubt, he would have to be politically consistent with his conduct in Libya – now, would he? On the 1st of July, and after 3 months of bombardment of Libya by NATO, several thousand people have marched in the streets of Tirpoli in support of Gadaffi, yet in the words of Cameron:-“As I’ve said, we will help fulfil the UN Security Council [resolution] – it is for the Libyan people to determine their government and their destiny. But our view is clear – there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power. [The world cannot] stand aside while this dictator murders his own people.”So, there are no equivalent public mass rallies in Benghazi of any size, and yet Gadaffi’s own people come out in mass support of their leader, but we cannot forget what Obama said:-“Muammar Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave,”and that Cameron and Obama are of one mind.All three leaders are, of course, on a “humanitarian mission”. And to implement same, one drops bombs relentlessly on the Libyan people, who then come out in mass support of their leader and demand that the NATO bombing stops. But, as we know, Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron are all great humanitarians and thus they shall not relent from the humanitarian bombing for accomplishment of the noble humanitarian mission of removing the leader who over a million people want, while insisting that a leadership that no one ever heard of before – is installed in power to uphold the democratic wishes of the Libyan people.Who really needs to consult the psychiatrist, Gadaffi, Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron or the masses of Libyans who marched in Tripoli ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHVDIMP-l80)?P.S. I note now that you tube is busy, yet again, blocking the videos showing the size of the pro-Gadaffi demonstrations. Of course, we have freedom of expression here in the West.The Western media for quite some time has utilised Gaddafi’s eccentricities to portray him as mad.

In reflecting on how this war in Libya has progressed, I, however, have reason to doubt the sanity of some Western leaders.

The war has been advanced by mainly three NATO nations, America, France and Britain.

Obama, while bombing Libya has professed that this is not a “war”. With stunning linguistic gymnastics, the war has somersaulted from the feet first “war” to a head over heels “support” mission and merely an “intervention”. I must now conclude that if I dislike my neighbour and start throwing Molotov cocktails on his roof and stones into his windows, I am not at war with him, but in an effort to have him remove from the neighbourhood, I am involved in a support mission and have merely intervened across the fence into his property. Sounds like a defence, then once I run it, I would have provided the Judge a good reason to order a psychiatric examination.

Sarkozy, for his part, is faced with a UN Resolution which prohibits the supply of arms to Libya. He then in seeking to enforce the UN Resolution supplies arms to the rebels, while professing to be upholding that UN Resolution. Candidate number two for mental status assessment.

In Britain, by parity of reason, one must assume that if a community took up arms, set up its own central bank, professed itself the new legitimate government of the UK, then for consistency, David Cameron, would simply fold his arms and direct that the British army not suppress the rebellion? Absolutely, because, no doubt, he would have to be politically consistent with his conduct in Libya – now, would he? On the 1st of July, and after 3 months of bombardment of Libya by NATO, several thousand people have marched in the streets of Tirpoli in support of Gadaffi, yet in the words of Cameron:-

“As I’ve said, we will help fulfil the UN Security Council [resolution] – it is for the Libyan people to determine their government and their destiny. But our view is clear – there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power. [The world cannot] stand aside while this dictator murders his own people.”

So, there are no equivalent public mass rallies in Benghazi of any size, and yet Gadaffi’s own people come out in mass support of their leader, but we cannot forget what Obama said:-

“Muammar Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and he must leave,”

and that Cameron and Obama are of one mind.

All three leaders are, of course, on a “humanitarian mission”. And to implement same, one drops bombs relentlessly on the Libyan people, who then come out in mass support of their leader and demand that the NATO bombing stops. But, as we know, Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron are all great humanitarians and thus they shall not relent from the humanitarian bombing for accomplishment of the noble humanitarian mission of removing the leader who over a million people want, while insisting that a leadership that no one ever heard of before – is installed in power to uphold the democratic wishes of the Libyan people.

I have just passed close to Libya on a ship to Greece and NATO warships are broadcasting to Rebel Forces not to kill pro Gaddaffi forces who have SURRENDERED. Methinks someone is not telling the public the truth about who are the bad guys.

Mark, the racial atrocities in the article are very disturbing to anyone who believes in human rights. Youtube has removed the embedded video because it contravenes their terms. I think I’m rather glad the link did not work. It’s deplorable enough reading about these atrocities, and those perpetrated by British forces, pointed out by Mouamar Adul Naser in his response to Oliver Miles Guardian piece. Thanks for keeping us in the loop, Mary.

I also viewed another report in Spanish from Zaviyah. It states that the rebels held the city for 20 days. During that time they robbed and completely destroyed the bank and civilians interviewed in the report said they did not even dare to go out to buy food.

Saif al Islam, Gaddafis son, says in an interview for Le Monde Diplomatique that Libya needs a peaceful solution according to the AU plan: A transitional government and then elections on all levels. Asked if the country needs a president he replied: We need strong local authorities that are democratically elected and a federal system.

Recognition by the United States of the National Transitional Council (NTC) bring pressure to bear on Gaddafi’s forces, as billions of dollars in frozen Libyan funds could be unlocked.
.
Looting of Libya’s foreign assets has begun. A British specialist team trained at the Al Basrah Oil Terminal is believed to be on HMS Iron Duke to secure the Libya oil terminal at the eastern Libyan town of Brega. The oil terminal is NOT under the control of the Libyan people..

Mark – “has begun” – it always was an orchestrated robbery on a grand scale from the beginning. This opeation makes the most notorious Caribbean pirates look like relatively reasonable men compared to the amounts the US and NATO are prepared to steal.
This is the theft of soverign funds on a massive scale.

Craig wrote: “There is strong empirical evidence that, exactly as I predicted it would, the effect of the NATO bombing campaign has been to shore up Gadaffi’s popularity”

Whereas if the Western action diminished his popularity, it would have been a good thing? Why, why does the West have to “do something about” Libya?

“and entrench him more firmly into power than when he faced a purely internal rebellion.”

When did he face a purely internal rebellion?

“Gadaffi has been able in the last fortnight to mobilise much larger mass rallies of supporters …. ”

“Gaddafi isn’t the government, he’s a symbolic leader,” said the president of the congress of Libyan tribes in a filmed interview. But, let us still imagine this is a conflict between two groups of deluded megalomaniacs. It makes you feel better, doesn’t it.

Benghazi dump, the most credible theory says government supporters did it as with the subsequent car bombs.
Notable is that (I think it was) the Warfallah tribe said they would remove the insurgents from Benghazi soon after the troubles began, Gaddafi told them not to. A large part of the Benghazi population is pro government.
For Dan Ellis –
The “spontaneous” uprising was planned from Nov 2010 on. Sarkozy pre-armed the insurgents in “bridge over sand”.
CFR’s Soros (henchmen Clinton, Power, Rice) via sponsorship of April 6th Youth Movement set the ball rolling with a peaceful youth protest Feb 15, 16. Feb 17 Sarkozy’s armed thugs stepped in and began murdering civilians, breaking open the jails to get more supporters, which is what prompted the army to respond.
Then Sarkozy sent in the jet bombers, special forces being already in place to relay coordinates and laser-paint targets.

There are many reasons for this action that has been on the table since 2002.
Install a puppet gov’t to –
Secure oil-gas supplies to the exclusion of China.
Permit the building/ reoccupation of bases by US and Israeli military.
Avoid the establishment of a state owned African central bank that was to issue the gold dinar to which African oil price was to be tied (and so cause premature dollar demise).
Replace the Libyan gov’t central bank with a cartel bank so securing the 140 tons real gold for use by the cartel octopus.
Rescue Goldman Sachs from delivering 5bn in GS shares to Libya.
Rescue GS and Sarkozy from a fraud action by Libya.
Free up ~130 bn (both sides of the pond) for use by the cartel octopus.
Gain control of the Libyan aquifer.
And finally avoid unification and development of Africa so that the likes of Rothschild, BP, Shell can continue to cause unrest for profit ( e.g. Sudan, Ivory Coast, Somalia etc).
Hmm. I missed arms sales and rebuild contracts.

There is strong empirical evidence that … the effect of the NATO bombing campaign has been to shore up Gadaffi’s popularity and entrench him more firmly into power

I will never understand why the British, of all people, don’t seem to understand that bombing people tends to strengthen their resolve and make them rally around their leaders. We even have a name for it – it’s called “Blitz spirit”.

Fantastic beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for a blog site? The account helped me a applicable deal. I were a little bit familiar of this your broadcast offered brilliant clear concept